• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Would anyone care to explain the anomalies that are the subject of this thread? How does the front part of a car get the steel melted, while the back half is pristine?
Click to expand...

Er... they were not subjected to the same conditions ?

Does this not imply that the front part was melted very quickly? How does a rubber tire disappear leaving the steel belts behind, without leaving any black goo? How does the metal burn when the plastic next to it is fine? How do the windows in a fire truck get blown out, but the fire truck is not damaged by any debris? This would certainly imply a huge increase in air pressure, would it not?
Click to expand...

That's a lot of questions.

It appears that whatever caused these weird things had 1) an ability to act selectively on different materials, and 2) the abiity to increase the temperature of steel very, very rapidly.
Click to expand...

Long live fire, eh ?

Please, JREFs, tell me what you imagine happened to create these effects.
Click to expand...

Obviously: a desintegrate spell.
 
Docker said:
He is far more qualified than you, oh and he is now a doctor. Hardly the type to be a nutjob
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Anyone can be a nutjob. Especially those who think they know more than everybody else. PhDs are prime targets, then.

Thought people who know NOTHING usually ALSO think they know more.

And why did the heat in the wtc not radiate to all the rest of the steel. There is no way that steel had the time to be compromised, even in the hottest part of the building. It is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Another glaring example that shows that CTers have a simplistic, kindergarten view of the universe. "But, it's ALSO made of metal, mom!"
 
Docker said:
The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.
Click to expand...
are you implying the fuel was the only thing int eh towers that could burn? are you implying it was the thing that would burn the hottest? if you are you are wrong on both counts
 
defaultdotxbe said:
are you implying the fuel was the only thing int eh towers that could burn? are you implying it was the thing that would burn the hottest? if you are you are wrong on both counts
Click to expand...

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?
 
Docker said:
I have explained this.
Click to expand...

Actually, you haven't. You made judgements based on what you think is wrong, yet you haven't cited any experts, haven't shown sources to back up your claims, and haven't even put up any worthwhile commentary.

So would you like to show us or not?
 
Docker:

Seems since I have last been here, you have started to devolve into child-like behaviour yourself.

What amazes me, is how someone, with a straight face, can say that Judy Wood and here crew are more reliable than all of the structural and civil engineers that worked on the NIST Study.

They did not "make up" the fire-proofing issue.

Once again, you are making comments which are pure opinion without a shred of evidence, speculating without any proof, and even your reasoning is illogical.

As for the Bullet/Steel Experiment, if you find it not realistic enough to demonstrate what they required, than what is your suggestion. NIST used a wide variety of methods to make their determinations, including computer models.

I understand your frustration with 20 Debunkers on your back simultaneously, but throwing out opinion after opinion without any proof, on a skeptics forum, well it isnt gonna get you anywhere except angry, and others angry along with you.

TAM
 
Docker said:
I have explained this.
Click to expand...
no, you haven't. You said NIST hasn't done realistic tests. Of course they have been peer reviewed by other scientists.

Are you a scientist? Its a simple question but you haven't answered.

I for instance have a B.A. in Economics. I am not an engineer. What is your backround?
 
Garb said:
Actually, you haven't. You made judgements based on what you think is wrong, yet you haven't cited any experts, haven't shown sources to back up your claims, and haven't even put up any worthwhile commentary.

So would you like to show us or not?
Click to expand...

Do you mind? The adults are talking.

I'm never having kids if this is what i'll have to put up with.
 
Docker said:
Thanks for linking to something in which NIST admits it couldn't get a floor assembly to collapse, even after 2 hours of exposure.
Click to expand...

Please do not move the goalposts. Is the referenced NIST .pdf the fireproofing to which you referred?
 
firecoins said:
no, you haven't. You said NIST hasn't done realistic tests. Of course they have been peer reviewed by other scientists.

Are you a scientist? Its a simple question but you haven't answered.

I for instance have a B.A. in Economics. I am not an engineer. What is your backround?
Click to expand...

Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?
 
Docker said:
Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?
Click to expand...
desks burning x (number of desks on a floor) x (4 floors) + plane impacts(140 tons)(500mph) = global collapse
 
Docker said:
Your signature is nice. Why don't you show it to the brave ground zero workers who are now dying. Thanks for pissing on graves before they have even been dug.
Click to expand...

If you feel Garb's signature is in violation of the forum rules of conduct, then feel free to report it to the moderators. Discussing it is not relevant to this thread.
 
Docker said:
Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?
Click to expand...

This has been noted by every engineer: the impact of the planes alone would not have brought about the collapse of the towers; the fire alone if the fireproofing had not been dislodged by the impact of the planes would not have brought about the collapse of the towers; however, the combination of impact and fire was certainly enough to cause local collapse of one floor, and mathematically, once one floor failed completely (and nearly simultaneously), collapse would progress and accelerate to total global collapse.

A little more nuanced than what your "soundbite" purports to say...
 
Docker said:
Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?
Click to expand...
No it isn't correct. I went to NYU. Graduated December 2000 in Economics. I was required to take science classes. What is your backround? Why you can't you answer your backround? Is it because you have no legit backround in any type of science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom